Bush Signs Terror Interrogation Law

And? This administration has shown the willingness and, maybe more appropriately put, the anxious desire to 'interpret' the Geneva Convention. Why not the Constitution in the interests of 'national security' at a certain point?

I am only saying that the larger trend of which this bill is a part of is what fundamentally stikes me as dangerous. It does not bother me if the actual perpetrators of the Sep.11 are lit on fire and left to rot, what does bother me is the attitude of consent which would allow such causing the same activities to be imposed on completely innocent people.

The Consitution is interpretted everyday. Its the reaosn The Supreme Court exists. There is a reason there are Amendments. You could have made the same arguement about gun control.

Why the Geneva Convention? Because its vague and this is the first time in history we have dealt with so many enemy combatants that are not associated to a government run state and it really wasn't set up for that purpose.

I understand what you are stating but in terms of american history these bills don't support the fears you are expressing.

Everyone is so quick to hop on the "rights" arguement when none of your right within this bill are in question.

For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

The Consitution is interpretted everyday. Its the reaosn The Supreme Court exists. There is a reason there are Amendments. You could have made the same arguement about gun control.

Why the Geneva Convention? Because its vague and this is the first time in history we have dealt with so many enemy combatants that are not associated to a government run state and it really wasn't set up for that purpose.

I understand what you are stating but in terms of american history these bills don't support the fears you are expressing.

Everyone is so quick to hop on the "rights" arguement when none of your right within this bill are in question.

I will concede that the policies and historical construction of the Geneva Convention are outdated and are in need of interpretation. I however, do not feel that they should be fundamentally altered, or the ability therein, should be given to any individual for the purpose of achieving political goals.

I don't think this is an issue of political partisan but dominant cultural ideals. Even the allowance of such a bill to pass without resistance shows two things: widespread and recognized ignorance of the masses, and a well documented push towards a trend of nationalism which has many prejudices inherent. Beginning with Sep.11, and I think you would agree, the moral fundamentalist movement in the United States has never been stronger. Right wing politics and right-wing religion are on the verge of being synonymous. In fact, George W. even initially called the attack on Afghanistan "Operation Infinite Justice" along with his call for a 'crusade'. When I say right I refer to neither Democrats or Republicans, quite frankly they both disgust me, but more the culture of 'right'.

Serisouly Mullet, many of these points are just flat out wrong which in your case would be welcomed.

The trend of nationlism is bascially over in terms of what is was in 2001-2002. The Republicans are getting voted OUT. You still have the traditional base but the 80% that supported the war is almost completely gone.

The religious right are at odds with traditional conservatives. They are more in line with neo-cons which the polar opposite of secualr progressives and/or liberal. Its almost 3 seperate entities in the Rebublican party and the same goes for Democrats.

I don't see some mainsteam right wing push at all, in fact its quite the opposite.

For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

I will concede that the policies and historical construction of the Geneva Convention are outdated and are in need of interpretation. I however, do not feel that they should be fundamentally altered, or the ability therein, should be given to any individual for the purpose of achieving political goals.

It wasn't. In fact, the bill is reinforced by them but when a certain guideline prohibits "embarrassment or humiliation" the interpratation has be there because different cultures have very different meanings on what is considered embarrasing or humiliating.

For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence to achieve political ends, which essentially the 'interpretation' of the Geneva by this Administration would do. So, when the United States is the target of such activities there exists a huge retalitory outcry, which this bill is fundamentally part of, but these retalitory activities are justified under the name of 'national security interests'. I am not trying to be trendy by consigning to a 'rights argument', I think I am being a human being who refuses to be convinced of state endorsed torture and terrorism. As I said, the trend of Nationalistic propaganda and policy was almost instant after the attacks and the effects of this trend are still, obviously, manifesting themselves. As I have already stated I do not think the bill in and of itself is the necessary danger to civil liberties, though it does impede them to an extent, it is the movement it is apart of.

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence to achieve political ends, which essentially the 'interpretation' of the Geneva by this Administration would do. So, when the United States is the target of such activities there exists a huge retalitory outcry, which this bill is fundamentally part of, but these retalitory activities are justified under the name of 'national security interests'. I am not trying to be trendy by consigning to a 'rights argument', I think I am being a human being who refuses to be convinced of state endorsed torture and terrorism. As I said, the trend of Nationalistic propaganda and policy was almost instant after the attacks and the effects of this trend are still, obviously, manifesting themselves. As I have already stated I do not think the bill in and of itself is the necessary danger to civil liberties, though it does impede them to an extent, it is the movement it is apart of.

And your movement is almost nonexistant and will be voted out November 8th which then you can welcome in the secualr progressives and liberals who influence the Democratic party.

Serisouly Mullet, many of these points are just flat out wrong which in your case would be welcomed.

The trend of nationlism is bascially over in terms of what is was in 2001-2002. The Republicans are getting voted OUT. You still have the traditional base but the 80% that supported the war is almost completely gone.

The religious right are at odds with traditional conservatives. They are more in line with neo-cons which the polar opposite of secualr progressives and/or liberal. Its almost 3 seperate entities in the Rebublican party and the same goes for Democrats.

I don't see some mainsteam right wing push at all, in fact its quite the opposite.

Flat out wrong why? Because you do not agree with the ideology behind them?

You are invariably reconciling politics and ideologies where in this case they do not need to be. As a citizen of the States your epistemology is fundamentally different than mine in so far as what you consider to be "right wing". Really, in the States there is only the right and the far-right, exhibited by your statement that the Democrats exemplify the left. Nationalism is not necessarily conflated with either one of the United States' partisan political parties, the point is the dominant cultural ideals of the citizens of the United States began to, and still are shifting to further and further to the right irregardless of what dumbass is piloting the ship.

Flat out wrong why? Because you do not agree with the ideology behind them?

You are invariably reconciling politics and ideologies where in this case they do not need to be. As a citizen of the States your epistemology is fundamentally different than mine in so far as what you consider to be "right wing". Really, in the States there is only the right and the far-right, exhibited by your statement that the Democrats exemplify the left. Nationalism is not necessarily conflated with either one of the United States' partisan political parties, the point is the dominant cultural ideals of the citizens of the United States began to, and still are shifting to further and further to the right irregardless of what dumbass is piloting the ship.

Becuase you don't seem to grasp the point the the religious right and the traditional conservative party are NOT ONE. In fact, it will be the lowest turnout from the religious right in protest of the way traditional conservatives run Congress.

Your whole arguement is based on the idea that this is some sort of movement and its NOT and the polls favor Deomcrats in almost every category down the line.

For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

And your movement is almost nonexistant and will be voted out November 8th which then you can welcome in the secualr progressives and liberals who influence the Democratic party.
Your definitions are extremely distorted. Harsh interrogation doens't influence a political agenda.

This is not a retaliatory outcry, it is putting into law that which alsready happened in the last 50 years. In fact, its LESS HARSH than what we have done in the past.

Your thinking is backwards here.

As I said in the above post, if you consider the Democratic party of the United States to be 'liberally influenced' than it is your thinking, not mine which is backwards in this case. The fact that the Democrats will be voted in November has more to do with this mismanagement, fully and completely, of a socio-economic crisis than dominant ideals. They will be voted out because they were misinformed, disorganized, and mismanaged, not because the public has in any way reversed their trend towards moral fundamentalism and Nationalism.

Really, in the States there is only the right and the far-right, exhibited by your statement that the Democrats exemplify the left.

Umm..there is the base, liberal left merged with secular progreessives which all make up the Democratic party. I said the Republican partt was almost 3 different entities as well AS WERE THE DEMOCRATS.

For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

As I said in the above post, if you consider the Democratic party of the United States to be 'liberally influenced' than it is your thinking, not mine which is backwards in this case. The fact that the Democrats will be voted in November has more to do with this mismanagement, fully and completely, of a socio-economic crisis than dominant ideals. They will be voted out because they were misinformed, disorganized, and mismanaged, not because the public has in any way reversed their trend towards moral fundamentalism and Nationalism.

Are you kidding me?

The House speaker will be San Frans own Nancy Pelosi and you are going to sit there and tell me its not liberal influenced?

George Soros fund anything lately?

For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

And if we want to get on the topic of 'traditional conservatism' than I could argue, quite rightfully, that this current administration does not embody traditional political conservatism. Morally, yes they do in so far as their tendency to appeal to the religiosity of their supporters, and in the mannerisms through which they operate. But politically? Far from it. This admin's dominant imperative has been gov. intervention.

The House speaker will be San Frans own Nancy Pelosi and you are going to sit there and tell me its not liberal influenced?

George Soros fund anything lately?

Dead serious.

If the trend is reversing as you contend it to be then give some evidence, anecdotal or quoted I don't care, but show me somewhere in the cultural framework where the United States public is endorsing any kind of shift away from the far right and towards the left.

As I said, the elimination of the Rep. party is NOT about IDEOLOGY but POLICY, you of all people should know that.

And if we want to get on the topic of 'traditional conservatism' than I could argue, quite rightfully, that this current administration does not embody traditional political conservatism. Morally, yes they do in so far as their tendency to appeal to the religiosity of their supporters, and in the mannerisms through which they operate. But politically? Far from it. This admin's dominant imperative has been gov. intervention.

Who suggested they were?

For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

Becuase you don't seem to grasp the point the the religious right and the traditional conservative party are NOT ONE. In fact, it will be the lowest turnout from the religious right in protest of the way traditional conservatives run Congress.
Your whole arguement is based on the idea that this is some sort of movement and its NOT and the polls favor Deomcrats in almost every category down the line.

If the trend is reversing as you contend it to be then give some evidence, anecdotal or quoted I don't care, but show me somewhere in the cultural framework where the United States public is endorsing any kind of shift away from the far right and towards the left.

As I said, the elimination of the Rep. party is NOT about IDEOLOGY but POLICY, you of all people should know that.

Then I am convinced that you do not follow politics because Nancy Pelosi is a die hard liberal and thats you next Speaker. Saying the Democratic party isn't influenced when your primary fund raiser is George Soros' is comical. Its just ridiculous.

You want me to prove the a population has a shift of morality and you obvisouly already know thats its impossible to answer. A sign is the pulling away of the traditional conservatives form the religous right. Go read Tempting Faith by David Kuo.

You started to debate stating the republican and religious right we're as one and that simply isn't true if you actually followed politics.

For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

Then I am convinced that you do not follow politics because Nancy Pelosi is a die hard liberal and thats you next Speaker. Saying the Democratic party isn't influenced when your primary fund raiser is George Soros' is comical. Its just ridiculous.

You want me to prove the a population has a shift of morality and you obvisouly already know thats its impossible to answer. A sign is the pulling away of the traditional conservatives form the religous right. Go read Tempting Faith by David Kuo.

You started to debate stating the republican and religious right we're as one and that simply isn't true if you actually followed politics.

The "your" you keep referring to as it pertains to Democrats, is not mine. I live in Canada, and so am not subjected to a two party rule and have an ACTUAL reference point to Social Democracy and liberalism.

I never said prove, how can you prove beyond a doubt the existence of an ideology? I simply asked you to provide some evidence to back up your assertion, I have for mine, and the only thing you have countered with is the predicted election of the Democratic party. Which, as I have stated, is NOT LIBERAL in the historical, or even contemporary construction of the word.

Some of the largest individual, and corporate sponsors of the Republican Party are right-wing evangelicals, and you mean to tell me that the amalgemation of these two rights which took place after Sep.11 has now magically regressed because people who follows basically the same ideologies are now going to take office???

But, that does not really matter as it is essentially besides the initial point which is usually the signifier an argument has lost its 'gusto' so to speak. And on that note, my girl is calling me for far more pressing matters.

The "your" you keep referring to as it pertains to Democrats, is not mine. I live in Canada, and so am not subjected to a two party rule and have an ACTUAL reference point to Social Democracy and liberalism.

I never said prove, how can you prove beyond a doubt the existence of an ideology? I simply asked you to provide some evidence to back up your assertion, I have for mine, and the only thing you have countered with is the predicted election of the Democratic party. Which, as I have stated, is NOT LIBERAL in the historical, or even contemporary construction of the word.

Some of the largest individual, and corporate sponsors of the Republican Party are right-wing evangelicals, and you mean to tell me that the amalgemation of these two rights which took place after Sep.11 has now magically regressed because people who follows basically the same ideologies are now going to take office???

I think it is you, who is kidding me.

Unbelievable. Then maybe you needed to say something two pages back when you were telling me what our Democratic party was or was not influence by but since you aren't even familiar with the term "liberal" as its applied here in America you aren't really in the position to debate this are you?

Oh so you want to associate the merging of parties by the number of contributions? Well then, I didn't hear anyone say the religious right doesnt influence the Republican party did I? I said they weren't one and the same as is evidence in David Kuo's book but you haven't read that right? He was the Deputy Director of the Faith Based Initiative (which Bush created) which said the Bush administration was using the religious right for votes and often referred to them as "the nuts". Maybe you should pick that book up and just see how merged they are. The Foley scandal didnt help much either.

So the Republicans are getting swept out of power mainly because the lack of support form the religious right, you have a book that was just released documenting the split between traditional conservatives and the religious right and you have people voting for the Democratic party in which everyone knows that a die hard liberal will be the Speaker. I'd say that's good evidence that your "movement" is a bit overblown and the trends seen here in the last 8 years are going the other way.

Now if that isn't evidence enough, maybe you need to come down and talk to the people.

For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

Just remember that the people that this is meant for are people whose religious faith condones & encourages them to kill every last one of us!

They don't fight under the banner of any nation (which means they don't qualify for protection under the Geneva Convention), they are not U.S. citizens, (which means they are not entitled to the same rights as you or I)......

....why am I explaining all of this when it is common sense? I swear..sometimes I wake up and feel like I'm living on Bizzaro World!

If you feel that the government has become a tyrannical police state that has taken your rights from you...then do what Ben Franklin and our founding fathers did....take up arms and start a revolution!

[QUOTE=Bobo]Unbelievable. Then maybe you needed to say something two pages back when you were telling me what our Democratic party was or was not influence by but since you aren't even familiar with the term "liberal" as its applied here in America you aren't really in the position to debate this are you?
[QUOTE]

I am perfectly familiar with the term liberal in general, and its contemporary application in American politics. It is you, who are not familiar with the concept, demonstrated by you constantly referring to the Dem. party as liberal

And because I live in a different country that precludes being from being knowledgeable enough on current events to engage in meaningful debate on US politics? Give me a break, you argue in the sports section ad nasuem and correct me if I am wrong you have never played on a professional sports team?My location does not negate my powers of observation.

But, I think this is irregardless of the topic a fruitless endeavour. You are cleary a "my country right or wrong" type of guy.

I am perfectly familiar with the term liberal in general, and its contemporary application in American politics. It is you, who are not familiar with the concept, demonstrated by you constantly referring to the Dem. party as liberal

And because I live in a different country that precludes being from being knowledgeable enough on current events to engage in meaningful debate on US politics? Give me a break, you argue in the sports section ad nasuem and correct me if I am wrong you have never played on a professional sports team?My location does not negate my powers of observation.

But, I think this is irregardless of the topic a fruitless endeavour. You are cleary a "my country right or wrong" type of guy.

Obvisouly you don't know.

And now its funny that you are putting words into my mouth simply because you don't know what you are tlaking about. On 2 occasions I have stated that both parties are 3 seperate entities but I guess you skipped that part yet I do not understand the concept? You made a statemnet yet haven't backed up one shred of it.

The Democratic party is influence liberals whether you want to believe it or not. You obviously don't know who Nancy Pelosi is or her San Fran values but its die hard liberal. Hillary Clinton is considered liberal and she is going to be the Democratic candidate for President. Sorry, there is great influence and I've just shown you 2 very large examples.

Who said you can't discuss politics when you are in Canada? I said since you obviosuly don't know how "liberal" is applied down here its quite logical that you can't make an accurate statement that the Democratic party is not influenced by them since you arne't familiar with how the term is used HERE.

But don't let me stop you from once again sticking words in my mouth, then going off on some emotional tangent on something I never stated. It seems to be the pattern when confronted with straight facts about the Democratic Party.

The Dems are influenced by SM's and liberals, the Republicans are influenced by the relligous right and neo-cons. Get over it, its a fact.

For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

US moderates are influenced by who can provide cheaper gas and legalize prostitution.

The problem with politics, aside from the corruption running the place; is the fact there are too many circles within circles that will not budge if they weren't the authors of anything considered good.

But, I think this is irregardless of the topic a fruitless endeavour. You are cleary a "my country right or wrong" type of guy.

I don't know what your problem is and you definitely have some sort very emotional bone to pick with anyone who objects to your "movement" theory but I am a traditional conservative who doesnt agree with the Bush administration on many ideas, don't agree with the tradition conservatives on many ideas especially immigration (another example of how the republican party is split), is not religious and haven't been to mass in about 10 years, could care less about what the Bible belt thinks and you can sit there and tell me what I am and what my party is?

Not once have I stated what I believe in until now but its just so nice that you boys up in Canada can make such broad assumption (wrong ones I might add) about what is going on down here. Look at the thread because there doesn't seem to many conservatives posting in here and the loudest one that was ultra conservative got banned last week.

Instead of making your broad assumptions and supporting your theory with zero facts and a very distorted view of whats actually going on down here maybe you should read the news from various sources a little more often before you start telling me whats going on down here and what I am.

For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

US moderates are influenced by who can provide cheaper gas and legalize prostitution.

And the moderates are in the middle of BOTH parties, not on some crazed religious movement.

Lieberman is running as an indepedent and someone is going to tell me that the party isn't influenced by liberals? The Democratic parties supported Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman, an incumbent that has been in the senate since 1988, because Lamont is anti-war and reflects the more heavily influenced liberal agenda. Lieberman is basically getting booted out of the party after he was the nomination for Vice President in 2000!!!!!

"Hartford -- Critics of Sen. Joe Lieberman's independent run to keep his job attacked on two fronts Monday, with one group asking an elections official to throw him out of the Democratic Party and a former rival calling on state officials to keep his name off the November ballot."

Oh, just another example:

"NEW YORK -- George Soros, one of the world's richest men, has given away nearly $5 billion to promote democracy in the former Soviet bloc, Africa and Asia. Now he has a new project: defeating President Bush.

Soros, who has financed efforts to promote open societies in more than 50 countries around the world, is bringing the fight home, he said. On Monday, he and a partner committed up to $5 million to MoveOn.org, a liberal activist group, bringing to $15.5 million the total of his personal contributions to oust Bush.

Overnight, Soros, 74, has become the major financial player of the left. He has elicited cries of foul play from the right. And with a tight nod, he pledged: "If necessary, I would give more money.

Soros's contributions are filling a gap in Democratic Party finances that opened after the restrictions in the 2002 McCain-Feingold law took effect. In the past, political parties paid a large share of television and get-out-the-vote costs with unregulated "soft money" contributions from corporations, unions and rich individuals. The parties are now barred from accepting such money. But non-party groups in both camps are stepping in, accepting soft money and taking over voter mobilization."

Liberals don't influence the Democrats. Give me a break.

For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

They don't fight under the banner of any nation (which means they don't qualify for protection under the Geneva Convention), they are not U.S. citizens, (which means they are not entitled to the same rights as you or I)......

They do now!!!!

We are the ONLY country that has a law stating this but somehow that gets twisted into "we legalized torture". THATS how f'ed up it is.

For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

And i'm a moderate who finds ties with platforms of both the dem and republican parties. I couldn't care less who is in power or in office or who writes the bills. I vote based off the meat and potatos regardless of those reasons above.

Just using this as a argueing tool. Loop holes are loop holes and just because certain items get more press than others doesn't mean other laws are written in a similar matter. i preach education and information. As long as your decisions are well informed ones then so be it. Who's to say who is right or wrong as long as you're both at least attempting to better the nation or the standards...

As a police officer if I 'want to' I could just about find any reason to pull you over if I was so inclined to. This is directly related to my knowledge and interpretation of the law and of course my moral standing along with my values.

My point? Laws may be there but if they are written vaguely anough, the right people can do a lot more than was originally intended.

And i'm a moderate who finds ties with platforms of both the dem and republican parties. I couldn't care less who is in power or in office or who writes the bills. I vote based off the meat and potatos regardless of those reasons above.

Just using this as a argueing tool. Loop holes are loop holes and just because certain items get more press than others doesn't mean other laws are written in a similar matter. i preach education and information. As long as your decisions are well informed ones then so be it. Who's to say who is right or wrong as long as you're both at least attempting to better the nation or the standards...

As a police officer if I 'want to' I could just about find any reason to pull you over if I was so inclined to. This is directly related to my knowledge and interpretation of the law and of course my moral standing along with my values.

My point? Laws may be there but if they are written vaguely anough, the right people can do a lot more than was originally intended.

Oh and I meant Us moderates not Us as in U.S.

Most moderates do, me included. I am pro choice, something that traditional conservatives are against. I don't agree with their immigrations policy either (which happens to resemble the Democratic Party as well). One wants cheap labor, the other wants guaranteed votes. Thats how the majority of the country is. There isn't a very large % of the population that agrees with one party or another 100%. To suggest otherwise is rididulous (not that you have).

"I couldn't care less who is in power or in office or who writes the bills."

This statement is dangerous because I can't remember a time i where the differences in agenda are so different. The moderates in the Democratic party don't scare me, the liberals such as Nancy Pelosi who will be the new Speaker, do.

She comes from the city where a city councilman suggested we don't need a military at all. Its just as dangerous as the ultra conservative religious right.

For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

I mean as in if they are repub or demo as long as they are people who I can align my beliefs with. Extreme lefties or right wingers are dangerous, imho. She's one of them.

Their ever changing opinion scares me as well.

I agree the intelligence was bad on all counts with the Iraq War and Bush, Democrats, England, Germany, France and everyone else that agreed simply got it wrong.

Here is a nice collection of quotes from leading Democrats that accuse Bush of now lying and they do seem a bit hypocritical to me. The commentary is not me as well. This all was taken form a webpage.

As you, I do not like blindly voting in people simply for a "change" which will happen November 8th. Bottom line, I wish there was 3rd party of moderates because as of now the extreme sides of the parties have way too much influence.

"IRAQ WAR LUNACY

"Men often oppose a thing merely because they have no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike."-Alexander Hamilton

The quote above by one of this country's most respected founding fathers is as true now as it was then. Don't believe me? Then what do you make of this quote by Democratic Senator Tom Daschle in a news conference back on Feb. 11, 1998, when President Clinton was ratcheting up support on a possible attack on Iraq.

"Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply militarily."

Kinda sounds like the same problem we faced last year doesn't it?? It was the same problem, and is a prime example of Alexander Hamilton's point. Now look at what Senator Daschle has to say as the war in Iraq began.

"I'm going to the White House this afternoon and I have a pretty good understanding, a pretty good idea what I'm going to hear. And I'm saddened, saddened that this President failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war, saddened that we have to give up one life because this President couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country. But we will work, and we will do all that we can to get through this crisis like we've gotten through so many."

Gee, in 98 with his beloved President Clinton in office the Senator said above that

" what other option is there but to force them to do so?"

He wanted us to attack Iraq then and now look how he acts now with a Republican president in office. Sure makes Alexander Hamilton look right if you ask me...

On this page you will see astounding quotes from people who sounded then like the current administration that they so detest sounds like now. What happened?? I think we all know. Read on if you don't and I'm sure when you are done you will at last.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

We do Al?? Where have you been?? Oh yeah, speaking to MORON.ORG on how Bush betrayed his country and played on our fears?? Amazing isn't it folks??

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

The bottom line?

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

Boy, the Burglar sure seems like he was convinced about Saddam.Who the heck names their son Sandy??

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

The San Francisco Liberal Treat! It's amazing isn't it folks?

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

Boy, here tune sure has changed in recent times! Can you say " Not so bright"??

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

Right Al! And if he doesn't let you fully inspect for weapons we should also assume that he has them right??? Do these people ever think that these things they say won't come back to haunt them??

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

We have known for many years Senator Kennedy, that you are full of.....err uh err uh

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

There's John Kerry giving his vote for the president to have authority to use force. That's not what he wants you to believe now that weapons have not been discovered!

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"unmistakable evidence." Gee, I guess Democrats should accuse him of lying along with the president eh?? Why do I doubt that they will??

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

Yes Rep. Waxman, and the UN and your party's solution was to make another resolution!!! It's like drawing 17 lines in the sand, Saddam crossing each one and then saying for the 18th time Don't you dare cross this one Saddam??? It's incredible folks, it truly is!

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

They say that Bush lied about the intelligence reports about Saddam. Tell me, if that is so, then doesn't it seem that the junior Senator from New York is lying as well? She sure seems concerned doesn't she?? HYPOCRISY!!

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

Compelling Evidence?? I've heard them say Unjust war, war for oil, and that Bush lied. I don't see that there from Senator Graham do you??

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Listen to what Senator Kerry is saying nowadays. Can you say HYPOCRITE???

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

I like Ford, I like Lieberman. They are closer to the old style Democrats who were vigilant towards national security.

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

YES!! That's right Madeline Not-so-Bright!! If you and your liberal friends had their way that is just what would have happened!! Hans Trixed and his inspector Clouseau's would never have found them in a million years. Eventually, with no weapons found, pressure on the UN from the axis of Weasel as well as Russia and China would have resulted in the lifting of the sanctions, essentially opening the vault for Saddam to start rebuilding his military as well as making his quest to seek weapons of mass destruction far easier! Things like this are why I went ahead and created this site. The average person in this country never gets to see a quote like this. Until Now!!

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

17 resolutions later and he still didn't comply! Let me guess Barbara, you wanted to go for an 18th??

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

The so called "conscience of the Senate" really must not have one. You can hear him nowadays accusing the president of everything except treason! Give him time though, he may get to it soon enough. A Former member of the Klu Klux Klan and a HYPOCRITE! "Sheets" belongs here at the Museum.

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

Here's my French Translation of what old Jacques said::

What is at stake how to keep Saddam in power so that we can continue to make and collect money from Iraq. Baghdad's regime has been Friendly with France since the days we built them that Nuclear Power plant that those evil Israelis blew to smithereens. Today there may be some evidences of France illegally selling arms and military equipment to Iraq and with an absence of inspectors it won't be proved.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

I want to hit liberals over the head with this quote don't you?

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

They love to take shots at current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. I wonder what they would think of this quote by Clinton's guy??

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

Tom Daschle sure seemed like a real smart guy looking out for the safety of his country back during the Clinton Administration. I guess he only chooses to be smart when a Democrat is in the white house. Please vote him out of office South Dakota!!

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

This guy is running for president. Look what he says then. Listen to what he says now. Does he think we are stupid? Evidently.

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- **** Gephardt in September of 2002

Sorry ****. While you were off being one by calling President Bush a "miserable failure", you did your best to ensure that your campaign was one as well.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

The should plaster this quote every where for all those Bush Lied Morons.

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

He now says that he didn't authorize force, just the threat of force. Do you want to give him your vote and authorize him to become Presient? Yeah I can see it now, No I didn't authorize this Large tax increase, I only authorized the idea of a Large tax increase!

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

Common belief! Did you hear that leftist looney's?? It was a common belief by the whole darn world. Of course the Bush Lied morons still can't get this through their cement thick heads!

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

No reason to think otherwise?? Did anybody see that?? Another case where the Bush Lied Morons need to open their eyes to.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

Give me an H, Give me a Y, Give me a P.. oh hell, we all know what she is!!

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

Coming straight from the Horse's Ass! No I didn't mean mouth. Scott said all these things but then made a complete 180 degree turn once he was paid some bucks by an Iraqi for some movie deal.

"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

I'll tell you, these ding dong's must really hate it when they have to deal with their old quotes about this subject. It makes them all look so foolish.

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Enough already!!

OK! Let's get to the point folks. All you hear nowadays is "unjust war" "there are no weapons of mass destruction" or that "Bush Lied". Based on what you have seen here, does it make any sense? How can people who we've quoted above say one thing about the Iraq war and then act as if they never said it by the comments they make now? It's called HYPOCRISY! It's just the type of thing that this Museum was created for. If you are undecided on who you will vote for this coming election I hope this page give you cause for concern about voting for a Democrat!"

For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

I went to that website and read trhough a few articles and it's just as guilty of taking fact and throwing it all out of whack with it's own self rightiousness against the left. Both sides have their crackpots and they are usually the loudest and most seen. To think all Liberals are on par with Michael Moore and all Conservatives, Rush Limbaugh is a bit much. I think most average citizens fall inbetween, at least I hope so.

I went to that website and read trhough a few articles and it's just as guilty of taking fact and throwing it all out of whack with it's own self rightiousness against the left. Both sides have their crackpots and they are usually the loudest and most seen. To think all Liberals are on par with Michael Moore and all Conservatives, Rush Limbaugh is a bit much. I think most average citizens fall inbetween, at least I hope so.

I don't think I ever said I agreed with everything. I was pointing out the hypocritical quotes, which are fact and did happen, from those who are about to be elected into power. Just because the man behind the page is far right doen'st mean the quotes don't apply to the character of the people now being put into power. One is just substituting the other under the idea of "change". The voters are going to go form one extreme to the other and most of them don't even know it.

You just pointed out the obvious.

For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.